IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i5d10.1007_s40271-022-00576-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Patient Voice: Exploring Treatment Preferences in Participants with Mild Cognitive Concerns to Inform Regulatory Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Carol Mansfield

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Kristin Bullok

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center)

  • Jillian Venci Fuhs

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center)

  • Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center)

  • J. Scott Andrews

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center
    Takeda Pharmaceuticals)

  • Dana DiBenedetti

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Brandy R. Matthews

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center)

  • Joshua C. Darling

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center
    Seagen Inc)

  • Jessie Sutphin

    (RTI Health Solutions
    Duke University)

  • Brett Hauber

    (RTI Health Solutions
    Pfizer, Inc., and the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington School of Pharmacy)

Abstract

Objective We aimed to assess the feasibility of developing a discrete-choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for a treatment to delay cognitive decline among people with a clinical syndrome consistent with early Alzheimer’s disease, including the development of self-reported screening criteria to recruit the sample. Methods Using input from qualitative interviews, we developed a discrete-choice experiment survey containing a multifaceted beneficial treatment attribute related to slowing cognitive decline for respondents with self-reported cognitive concerns. In two rounds of in-person pretest interviews, we tested and revised the survey text and discrete-choice experiment questions, including examples, language, and levels associated with the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, along with a set of de novo self-reported questions for identifying respondents who had neither too mild nor too advanced cognitive decline. Self-reported memory and thinking problems were compared with symptoms from studies of patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (e.g., mild cognitive impairment, mild Alzheimer’s disease) to determine whether those studies’ recruited patients were similar to our anticipated target population. Round 1 pretest interviews resulted in significant simplifications in the survey instrument, revisions to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and revisions to the screening process. In round 2 of the pretest interviews, the ability of participants to provide consistent responses to the self-reported screening questions was further assessed. In addition, to evaluate participants’ ability to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey, two interviewers independently evaluated each participant’s ability to make trade-offs in the discrete-choice experiment questions and to understand the content of the survey. Results Round 1 (15 pretest interviews) identified challenges with the survey instrument related to the complexity of the choice questions. The screening process did not screen out seven respondents with more advanced cognitive decline, as determined qualitatively by the interviewers and by these participants’ inability to complete the survey. The survey instrument and screening criteria were revised, and an initial online screener was added to the screening process before round 2 pretests. In round 2 pretests, 12 participants reported cognitive problems similar to the target population for the survey but were judged able to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey. Conclusions We developed self-reported screening criteria that identified a sample of individuals with memory and thinking concerns who were similar to individuals with clinical symptoms of early Alzheimer’s disease and who were able to independently complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey. Quantitative patient preference studies provide important information on patients’ willingness to trade off treatment benefits/risks. Adapting the technique for patients with cognitive decline requires careful testing and adjustments to survey instruments. This work suggests it is the severity of cognitive impairment, rather than its presence, that determines the ability to complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Carol Mansfield & Kristin Bullok & Jillian Venci Fuhs & Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich & J. Scott Andrews & Dana DiBenedetti & Brandy R. Matthews & Joshua C. Darling & Jessie Sutphin & Brett Hauber, 2022. "The Patient Voice: Exploring Treatment Preferences in Participants with Mild Cognitive Concerns to Inform Regulatory Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(5), pages 551-564, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00576-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00576-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00576-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-022-00576-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00576-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.